...you will eventually have to effectively treat nature as though it has been fine tuned from one end to the other, that there are no proverbial vestigial organs, or Junk DNA to be found. That the layers of complexity will become pervasive, (but let's face it we're nearly there.)

Gee, the version of evolution I understand doesn't expect, or need to expect, biology to be "fine-tuned", just good enough to get by and survive. The evolutionary theory I'm aware of in fact expects things like junk DNA and vestigial organs -- while it's also being smart enough to know that some of what looks like junk and looks vestigial now might merely have useful functionality we haven't discovered yet.

Quote:

As for believing? It's never going to happen. As for the 'mafia,' those who don't agree will go and start their forth-rate universities.

I wonder if the biologists these universities turn out will be as impressive as the as all those University of Jesus lawyers the Bushies packed the Department of Justice with. Maybe now that Laura Goodling is out of a job at the DoJ, she can go back to Messiah and pick up a PhD in Christian Biology for her next stunning career.

Quote:

You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time trying to imagine that the catcalls are either entertainment, or education, or anything at all constructive.

Poor ickle downtrodden Christians, can't make it in the real world, so they've got to build their own protective bubble world instead.

Quote:

Yes, the same way the Christians marginalized themselves with respect to Rome.

Odd, I don't recall how early Christians had to go off and build themselves a parallel protective bubble world before being able to supplant Roman paganism, which was pretty weak at the time anyway. Nor do I recall a great flourishing of the sciences that came with the ascendancy of Christianity. In fact, I recall something of the opposite effect.

I wonder if the biologists these universities turn out will be as impressive as the as all those University of Jesus lawyers the Bushies packed the Department of Justice with. Maybe now that Laura Goodling is out of a job at the DoJ, she can go back to Messiah and pick up a PhD in Christian Biology for her next stunning career.

Were cases like Kitzmiller oddities on the political and legal landscape, science educators and parents concerned about the quality of their childrens public school science education would have comparatively little to worry about. Were it so, one could view such events as the workings of local groups of well-placed, but misguided, individuals trying to push their views into the educational policy arena. Sadly, however, this is not how things are in the contemporary United States. On the contrary, Kitzmiller is an example of a far more general phenomenon, namely, a systematic attempt by certain powerful segments of the population to interfere with science, scientific practice, and science education for political reasons. As Chris Mooney writes, science is politicized when there is any attempt to inappropriately undermine, alter, or otherwise interfere with the scientific process, or scientific conclusions, for political or ideological reasons. Before offering some concluding recommendations, we want to note briefly how science is being politicized on a number of fronts today.

Quote:

The current Bush administration has been accused of serious political meddling in science. So pervasive is this thought to be that in 2004 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) produced two reports detailing the administrations interference with science. The UCS documents a host of strategies used by government agencies to interfere with or distort science in order to bring it in line with the administrations policy agendas. These strategies include: suppressing or censoring scientific research; distorting or misrepresenting scientific evidence; controlling the scientific process in government agencies; subjecting potential scientific appointees to political litmus tests; appointing non-scientists in senior science advisory positions; appointing under-qualified scientists to important government positions; exerting pressure on government scientists about what they are allowed to say to the media; showing favoritism within government agencies to research funded by industry that has pro-administration conclusions; etc. And these tactics have been felt at a number of government agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others.

Quote:

The broadly anti-science outlook of the Bush administration has not gone unnoticed. Two bills have been introduced into the Senate that attempt to bring the White Houses approach to science in line with that of the scientific community, and there has been a recent call to launch a Congressional investigation into the administrations interference with science. While these bills and the Congressional investigation may not get very far, the spirit which animates these efforts is laudable. They represent attempts to drive a wedge between scientific norms and practice and government in order to ensure that the autonomy of science is protected.

Quote:

These developments provide the broader cultural and political backdrop against which antievolutionary efforts and arguments have been developing in recent years. Our summary view is that such attempts to discredit evolutionary theory and to introduce intelligent design theory into science curricula raise issues that are not only educational, but also theological, ethical, and political. We hope to have indicated why intelligent design theory lacks any defensible scientific rationale. Intelligent design theorists have not made a convincing case that evolutionary theory is a theory in crisis, one that has failed to stand the test of time. Nor have they gathered empirical evidence in direct support of their theorizing. We also hope to have shown what theological, ethical, and civic issues are at stake in efforts to provide intelligent design theory a place in science education. For religious believers, intelligent design theory suggests an account of God as filling gaps of knowledge that may later be filled by scientific discoveries, thereby diminishing Gods connection with what believers consider Gods handiwork. For educators, allowing extra-scientific or faith-based ideas to parade as scientific claims entails a disregard for the moral terms that ought to shape inquiry and the exchange of ideas between free and equal persons. And for policy makers, providing a place for intelligent design theory in science education jeopardizes the wall between church and state and ignores the fundamental difference between science as a method and more comprehensive, metaphysical worldviews. Moreover, it also jeopardizes the already inadequate science education system in the United States.90

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Gee, the version of evolution I understand doesn't expect, or need to expect, biology to be "fine-tuned", just good enough to get by and survive. The evolutionary theory I'm aware of in fact expects things like junk DNA and vestigial organs -- while it's also being smart enough to know that some of what looks like junk and looks vestigial now might merely have useful functionality we haven't discovered yet.

Yes, but how many vestigial organs are there today? What if there is no Junk DNA at all? Why not just go find what the designer left us to discover, and skip the middle part? The belief in a predictable universe drove science in the Christian West for this very reason. segovius can tell you about the other guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

I wonder if the biologists these universities turn out will be as impressive as the as all those University of Jesus lawyers the Bushies packed the Department of Justice with. Maybe now that Laura Goodling is out of a job at the DoJ, she can go back to Messiah and pick up a PhD in Christian Biology for her next stunning career.

Do they have a Jesus Bar Exam for the fundies, and another one for the 'real' attorneys? (I don't think Bill Marr prepared you to answer that.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Poor ickle downtrodden Christians, can't make it in the real world, so they've got to build their own protective bubble world instead.

I don't remember the world coming to an end when the home/private schoolers pulled 10-15% of the school-age kids from the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Odd, I don't recall how early Christians had to go off and build themselves a parallel protective bubble world before being able to supplant Roman paganism, which was pretty weak at the time anyway.

The Christians had their own social system in many respects, charities, courts etc. (the pagans knew they could get justice from the Christian 'judges' and would use them.) And it wasn't a protective bubble, they simply went about their business, while the existing systems rotted away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Nor do I recall a great flourishing of the sciences that came with the ascendancy of Christianity. In fact, I recall something of the opposite effect.

Yes, I thank the Protestants for making all that possible, too.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

You know, I've been called on that before, but it was before i knew of C.S. Lewis' other writings. Meh, I still like the nick and the stories.

Rather than a militia, I was thinking something along the lines of making it socially acceptable to publicly humiliate Christians for their beliefs. Something that other people would see and cause them to question their faith. Obviously, those who have already decided on a life of ignorance will be beyond help but I think we can really do something for people who are on the fence, kids, agnostics, Sunday Christians, etc.

Excellent. Then we can publicly humiliate:

Illegal Aliens, so that others would not want to break the law to get here.Gays, so that those who are questioning would stop it.LIberals, so that we could all see what happens when you try to take money from others for your own purposes.Jews, for the same reason as Christians.You, so that others can see what happens when you make stupid, intolerant posts while demanding toleration for other groups.

You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time...

Its been happening since the early 1980s. Most Christians are already starting their own institutions separate from those that are hostile to their faith. Take homeschooling, for example.

Poor ickle downtrodden Christians, can't make it in the real world, so they've got to build their own protective bubble world instead.

Asshole. You'd consider the same (just like the gay movement, or any other movement for that matter has done) if your particular faith or characteristic was under perpetual assault, by, uh, people like, uh.. YOU.

A "counterattack" is not the answer right? Toleration and bridge building and all that, right?
Are you part of the ongoing war or part of the solution?

Do they have a Jesus Bar Exam for the fundies, and another one for the 'real' attorneys?

No, but it sure helps if your a member of the Federalist Society (check mark beside your name on GWB, et. al. list of appointees) or if you received your law degree from Regent University, (founded by Pat Robertson) like Monica Goodling. There are 150 graduates of the Regent law school in the White House.

Quote:

Yes, I thank the Scientists for making all that possible, too.

TFTFY!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

No, but it sure helps if your a member of the Federalist Society (check mark beside your name on GWB, et. al. list of appointees) or if you received your law degree from Regent University, (founded by Pat Robertson) like Monica Goodling. There are 150 graduates of the Regent law school in the White House.

Yes, but that's back to politics, not whether they can pass the Bar Exam. You still bury them 12 feet, rather than the usual six, because deep, down, they're not that bad.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Yes, but that's back to politics, not whether they can pass the Bar Exam. You still bury them 12 feet, rather than the usual six, because deep, down, they're not that bad.

We're in PO are we not? This whole thread is basically about the politics of disinformation as practiced by the usual suspects.

Quote:

Regent Law was ranked in Tier 4 by U.S. News, the lowest ranking and essentially a tie for 136th place out of 170 schools surveyed.

Quote:

The Princeton Review ranked Regent Law the second most conservative law school, "based on student assessment of the political bent of the student body at large."

Quote:

According to statewide and national statistics, Regent's four-year average Virginia bar pass rate is 51.5%, which is 21.5% below the statewide average of 73%, and the lowest in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Quote:

A Regent web page claimed that 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration. This statement was removed shortly after this claim was reported on in the national media, but as of April 20, 2007, is again listed on the page. The language was changed from stating that the graduates were "serving" in the Bush administration, to state that they "have served" in the Bush administration, an apparent response to the resignation of Monica Goodling. Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage, noting that previously it was rare for Regent graduates to join the government, has suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, formerly dean of Regent's government school, caused this sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government.

Nooooooooo!, franksargent, I can't. I did look at the TOC (which has pagination errors, btw), 'the pedigree of intelligent ID' hells bells, the movement is neonatal at this point. 'Teach the controversy' is naïve, at best.

Short three-round burts of consise points, the endless linking could go one forever. Unless it's an Op-ed in the WSj, that is.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Why not just go find what the designer left us to discover, and skip the middle part?

Because assuming a designer first is kind of begging the question? Because assuming a designer has no explanatory value whatsoever, other than adding an extraneous entity (as in those things you shouldn't needlessly multiply) which becomes nothing more than a black box -- a God of the Gaps -- to which one assigns all processes one doesn't understand, and which by definition isn't subject to further experimental examination of any sort? Because of all the things in biology which look like colossally stupid "design", if one assumes an intelligence being at work behind the "design"?

Quote:

The belief in a predictable universe drove science in the Christian West for this very reason. segovius can tell you about the other guys.

Belief in a shortcut to India drove Columbus and other explorers to find the New World. It seems the motivation for the search doesn't always match the things that are found. Would you like to recommend that future space explorers doggedly keep looking for the Northwest Passage because that search was so fruitful before in unexpected ways?

Quote:

I don't remember the world coming to an end when the home/private schoolers pulled 10-15% of the school-age kids from the system.

And this is related to what I said exactly how? My ribbing you for a retreat into the protective bubble didn't carry any suggestion at all that such a retreat would lead to any sort of general disaster.

Quote:

And it wasn't a protective bubble, they simply went about their business, while the existing systems rotted away.

But what you suggest does sound like a protective bubble...

Quote:

In a generation or two, Christians, Muslims, etc., wont have to be insulted or run the predatory secular gauntlet to get their educations... You can only control us if you can force us into your institutions. I think the time is coming when the religious will simply unlpug, build their own cultural infrastructure, and stop wasting their time trying to imagine that the catcalls are either entertainment, or education, or anything at all constructive.

...and other than in your wishful imagination perhaps, there's no parallel between the current fairly robust scientific community and the then already-failing Roman empire.

Quote:

Yes, I thank the Protestants for making all that possible, too.

Which all started with questioning religious dogma, and which lead inevitably to questioning religion itself.

Nooooooooo!, franksargent, I can't. I did look at the TOC (which has pagination errors, btw), 'the pedigree of intelligent ID' hells bells, the movement is neonatal at this point. 'Teach the controversy' is naïve, at best.

Unfortunately, that one will never come to term, even if there were an infinite number of ID "monkeys" sitting in front of an infinite number of test tubes.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I don't think so, I think we're down into the single digits. I'll check.

Edit: As far as wholly useless, the number is essentially none. I guess there is a contention over whether the holdovers can have any use at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

What if the moon is made out of green cheese? What then, smart guy?

Please let it be Gruyère. Seriously, what I'm saying is looking more and more likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Because assuming a designer first is kind of begging the question? Because assuming a designer has no explanatory value whatsoever, other than adding an extraneous entity (as in those things you shouldn't needlessly multiply) which becomes nothing more than a black box -- a God of the Gaps -- to which one assigns all processes one doesn't understand, and which by definition isn't subject to further experimental examination of any sort? Because of all the things in biology which look like colossally stupid "design", if one assumes an intelligence being at work behind the "design"?

But that's the thing, it's never happened that way in the West -- your Eastern religions are prone to do that -- but the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif, is the exact opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Belief in a shortcut to India drove Columbus and other explorers to find the New World. It seems the motivation for the search doesn't always match the things that are found. Would you like to recommend that future space explorers doggedly keep looking for the Northwest Passage because that search was so fruitful before in unexpected ways?

Actually the Greeks had the diameter of the Earth nailed by ~350 B.C. Columbus was using a screwed up measurement based on star inclinations (everyone was then). He would have never, ever, made that trip if he'd known the real distance to China.

But the point is kinda/sorta okay, in a Kuhn sort of way, unless your worldview casts a sickly, dysfunctional view of Nature, when it's actually a much different thing. You'd end up wasting a lot of time on the different parts of the Elephant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

...and other than in your wishful imagination perhaps, there's no parallel between the current fairly robust scientific community and the then already-failing Roman empire.

No, that was directed at the social aspects. Science doesn't need anyone's defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Which all started with questioning religious dogma, and which lead inevitably to questioning religion itself.

Not before they had massive blossoming of scientific discovery.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

ID is in a tricky situation. They want the beef, but wont recognize the brand. There's a lot of slight-of-hand about 'what is science,' but in the end, I don't really know if they can hold what they're doing together philosophically. It may be enough to identify materialism as one ideology among many.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Asshole. You'd consider the same (just like the gay movement, or any other movement for that matter has done) if your particular faith or characteristic was under perpetual assault, by, uh, people like, uh.. YOU.

I don't think so, I think we're down into the single digits. I'll check.

Edit: As far as wholly useless, the number is essentially none. I guess there is a contention over whether the holdovers can have any use at all.

First of all you make it sound like the existence of vestigial organs and junk DNA are the threat that evolutionary theory can't deal with, now you're making it sound like it's the lack of such things evolution can't cope with.

Quote:

Seriously, what I'm saying is looking more and more likely.

Seriously looking that way to whom? Those fine fellows at the Discovery Institute? Whatever it is you're saying.

Quote:

But that's the thing, it's never happened that way in the West -- your Eastern religions are prone to do that -- but the Calvinistic Where's the baby's room?! dominion overdrive motif, is the exact opposite.

1 Q: Why not just go find what the designer left us to discover, and skip the middle part?
2 A: List of problems with assuming a designer in the first place.
3 But that's the thing, it's never happened that way in the West...
^

Error: Non sequitur detected in line 3.

Care to provide an antecedent for the "it" which has "never happened that way"? You asked a question. I gave you my objections to the premise of that question. My objections stand whether your religion is east, west, or on a heading 20 degrees west of north at a speed of 50 knots.

Quote:

Not before they had massive blossoming of scientific discovery.

It was the questioning of religious dogma, the awaking of rational thought, and the idea that systematic examination of the natural world could lead us to greater understanding of that world which was the secret of success. To the extent that for quite some time many scientists were inclined to speak of the order they discovered as "God's order", and perhaps even a few scientists like to do so today, it's nothing but window dressing on the actual work done and the approach which is taken, or perhaps an emotional component that for some drives the effort.

dmz doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to anything scientific, so don't bother attempting to pin him down on facts or else he will start his tongue-in-cheek nudge-nudge monty python inspired materialism bit...

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

dmz doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to anything scientific, so don't bother attempting to pin him down on facts or else he will start his tongue-in-cheek nudge-nudge monty python inspired materialism bit...

You're right, but it does help contextualize the complaint a bit. "Our hegemony isn't hegemonic ENOUGH!!!"

Is it even really an assault on Christians?

Is it?

Are secularists (other than whipping man of the century Dawkins) actively pursuing the Christian Dogma? Are they attacking it's lack of any semblance of a quality intellectual frame work? And are they doing this anywhere near the level that the Christian majority is attacking anything that isn't Christian (tm)?

It is a classic ruse -- claim your actions are justified by accusing your opponent of engaging in tactics you are actively employing as if they are offenses of the worst order. It isn't surprising that the militant Christian 'intellectual' *scoff* movement is so hypocritical, after all look at the entire history of the religion itself. It reads like a manual for moral, intellectual and personal duplicity.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

Are secularists (other than whipping man of the century Dawkins) actively pursuing the Christian Dogma? Are they attacking it's lack of any semblance of a quality intellectual frame work? And are they doing this anywhere near the level that the Christian majority is attacking anything that isn't Christian (tm)?

It is a classic ruse -- claim your actions are justified by accusing your opponent of engaging in tactics you are actively employing as if they are offenses of the worst order. It isn't surprising that the militant Christian 'intellectual' *scoff* movement is so hypocritical, after all look at the entire history of the religion itself. It reads like a manual for moral, intellectual and personal duplicity.

Well, the rhetoric of oppression works. Just look at the Republicans.

But you are absolutely correct. My point, however, was that you can't be the biggest religion on the planet and claim that you're being oppressed.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

You do realize that number of professing Christians has nothing to do with the assault on Christians, right?

It's the fundamentalists Christians, the Bible literalists that seem most threatened. Beyond those types, other Christians are convinced God created the universe, setting things in motion at the vary least.

Science is an attempt to understand all that is around us through the principle of causality. The thing about science is that it is never satisfied, is always tested, revised, updated as new knowledge is obtained. Science doesn't start with the premise of the existence of a creator in order to attempt well constructed models/theories from observations.

The spiritual versus the material.

Science is also being attacked vigorously here in the US, which is odd since it isn't a formal belief system, it's a tool or method of understanding our existence in a quantifiable way.

We all fear our mortality, we want there to be something more than just our earthly existence.

I do feel that like the Amish, the most fundamentalist groups will form their own communities throughout the US, to protect their way of life.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Illegal Aliens, so that others would not want to break the law to get here.Gays, so that those who are questioning would stop it.LIberals, so that we could all see what happens when you try to take money from others for your own purposes.

Already quite acceptable and being done by the MSM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Jews, for the same reason as Christians.

And the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jubelum

You, so that others can see what happens when you make stupid, intolerant posts while demanding toleration for other groups.

I don't recall advocating tolerance. In fact I have stated quite the opposite in the past. To some extent (mainly on the internets) I am an intolerant person, I just happen to have a "liberal" bias.

First of all you make it sound like the existence of vestigial organs and junk DNA are the threat that evolutionary theory can't deal with, now you're making it sound like it's the lack of such things evolution can't cope with.

Seriously looking that way to whom? Those fine fellows at the Discovery Institute? Whatever it is you're saying.

Well, I don't know, I figured if someone quotes Nature maybe they weren't making it up. Check out "Its the junk that makes us human" in the Nov. 2006 issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Care to provide an antecedent for the "it" which has "never happened that way"? You asked a question. I gave you my objections to the premise of that question. My objections stand whether your religion is east, west, or on a heading 20 degrees west of north at a speed of 50 knots.

Oh, stop it, the West has never experienced the 'Oh God did it, so who cares?' problem. A big part of that reason is the dominion mandate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

It was the questioning of religious dogma, the awaking of rational thought, and the idea that systematic examination of the natural world could lead us to greater understanding of that world which was the secret of success. To the extent that for quite some time many scientists were inclined to speak of the order they discovered as "God's order", and perhaps even a few scientists like to do so today, it's nothing but window dressing on the actual work done and the approach which is taken, or perhaps an emotional component that for some drives the effort.

No, I think it was a moral push, or impetus then, where today, yes, it's more of a 'let's control nature, and by extension, ourselves/our destiny.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Imo, the opposition should not be to religion - especially not to any specific religion - but to limiting and damaging inflexible beliefs particularly if these beliefs can be proved to be false and the result of bias and prejudice.

As Dawkins himself rightly points (albeit interminably and sans humour) religion contains many dogmas that would fall into this category.

Unfortunately so does Dawkins himself.

But to place religion en masse in this category and give science a free pass is exactly what the intolerant Christians do. And the only justification both offer when confronted with this is that they are 'speaking the truth'.

Well, maybe they are. Maybe not. Doesn't matter - we are talking about intolerance. Take this quote from Dawkins for example:

Quote:

He definitely has a temper, though. When he starts talking about Nadia Eweida, the Christian recently denied permission to openly wear a cross by her employer British Airways, his cheeks are positively puce.

"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."'

He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."

That seems to me a stupid and specious argument. I would not call Dawkins stupid though - but his opinions are illogical and do not gel with his '#1 intellectual status'.

I am against fundies and creationists as much as Dawkins is and while I believe some in that camp may be 'evil' (for want of a better term) I would not see the individual as stupid. Brainwashed perhaps. An unquestioning sheep very likely. But they are not stupid in as much as they have the possibility to wake up.

It seems Dawkins does not believe this - not surprising really as it is a quasi-religious model and a form of 'redemption'.

Dawkins and his ilk however believe in 'stupid people' and 'clever people' which is in essence an immutable power structure (with them at the top). Radical Wahabis believe this also viz the position of women and men, fundies of all descriptions believe it re 'saved' and 'infidels'.

The basis is the same......

Flexible beliefs which nlead to scientidic and philosophical enlightenement can exist in any framework. There is nothing in religion that limits this; when Europe was in the Dark Ages chafing under the yoke of the Church, Muslims enjoyed hot and cold running water in their houses and had street lighting and schools for everyone. Of course this resulted in incredible scientific discoveries that are the basis of much western thought.

Most anti-religionists deny this by the method of ignoring it and continuing to claim that religion as a whole is anti-science. That is in essence a lie. So is the refusal to consider other phenomena or artefacts which do not fit the current scientific paradigms.

At least religion teaches one should NOT lie whether its adherents choose to abide by that or not....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Planet-seekers who have spotted 28 new planets orbiting other stars in the past year say Earth's solar system is far from unique and there could be billions of habitable planets.

The most recent planet discoveries bring the number of known exoplanets -- planets outside our solar system -- to 236, the researchers told a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu on Monday.

"We are beginning to see that our home is not a rarity in the universe," said Geoffrey Marcy, a professor of astronomy at the University of California Berkeley, who led the team.

"We are easily able to detect giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn around other stars. Most orbit far from the star like our own Jupiter and Saturn orbit from the sun," Marcy said in a telephone interview.

Huh? That's in direct contradiction to your earlier bullshit that the reason there are so few hate crimes against Christians is because so many people are Christian.

Did you learn logic from the Bible, too?

Oh... actualyl I think that argument was made by DMZ... sorry...

So DMZ and Jubelum are arguing the exact opposite thing to prove the same point. Hmm...

Kinda goes to show that people make up all kinds of bullshit to support an argument.

What "argument" do you think I am making, before you take issue with it? Or are you just attacking out of reflex? I'm not talking about hate crimes. I'm talking about anti-Christian sentiment having nothing to do with the popularity of the faith.

And thanks for getting your facts "straight" with me vs. DMZ. Just keep firing blindly at those who might disagree with you. I makes your argument that much more compelling.

These threads never solve anything. Just allow a forum for a whole bunch of people to get their faceless angst expressed in a safe environment. And it polarizes further almost everyone. Not much reconciliation and "progress" being made. Ever.

What "argument" do you think I am making, before you take issue with it? Or are you just attacking out of reflex? I'm not talking about hate crimes. I'm talking about anti-Christian sentiment having nothing to do with the popularity of the faith.

And thanks for getting your facts "straight" with me vs. DMZ. Just keep firing blindly at those who might disagree with you. I makes your argument that much more compelling.

Ok then. You say there is a disproportionate amount of "anti-Christian sentiment". I thought hate crimes against Christians might be evidence of anti-Christian sentiment.

So what do you consider evidence of anti-Christian sentiment?

I'll give you a hint. I've never said a single thing on these or any other boards that is anti-Christian.